Motsepe v S (A 816/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1016; 2015 (2) SACR 125 (GP); 2015 (5) SA 126 (GP) (5 November 2014)

Motsepe v S (A 816/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1016; 2015 (2) SACR 125 (GP); 2015 (5) SA 126 (GP) (5 November 2014)

The court found that the appellant did not possess the necessary intention for criminal defamation. Although he acted negligently and recklessly by failing to verify the information before publication, recklessness does not equate to criminal intent. The evidence showed that the appellant relied on information provided by others and believed he was acting in the public interest. The State failed to prove intentional publication beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not stand. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court held that criminal defamation, even as applied to media practitioners, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The limitation on freedom of expression...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1016
Parties
Appellant: Ntele Cecil Motsepe; Respondent: The State; Amicus Curiae: Freedom of Expression Institute; Amicus Curiae: Association of Independent Publishers; Amicus Curiae: Centre of Human Rights; Amicus Curiae: Committee to Protect Journalists; Amicus Curiae: Human Rights Watch; Amicus Curiae: Media Legal Defence Initiative; Amicus Curiae: Media Monitoring Africa; Amicus Curiae: M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism; Amicus Curiae: Pan African Human Rights Defenders Network; Amicus Curiae: PEN International; Amicus Curiae: PDMSA; Amicus Curiae: Professional Journalists Association of SA; Amicus Curiae: Right to Know Campaign; Amicus Curiae: SANEF; Amicus Curiae: World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2014
Case Number
A 816/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.
Judges
Molefe, Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Criminal Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Media Rights, Bill of Rights Limitation, Intentional Publication
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Defamation Freedom of Expression Media Rights Bill of Rights Limitation Intentional Publication

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntele Cecil Motsepe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Freedom of Expression Institute

Amicus Curiae

Association of Independent Publishers

Amicus Curiae

Centre of Human Rights

Amicus Curiae

Committee to Protect Journalists

Amicus Curiae

Human Rights Watch

Amicus Curiae

Media Legal Defence Initiative

Amicus Curiae

Media Monitoring Africa

Amicus Curiae

M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism

Amicus Curiae

Pan African Human Rights Defenders Network

Amicus Curiae

PEN International

Amicus Curiae

PDMSA

Amicus Curiae

Professional Journalists Association of SA

Amicus Curiae

Right to Know Campaign

Amicus Curiae

SANEF

Amicus Curiae

World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant possessed the necessary intention for the crime of criminal defamation.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for criminal defamation is constitutionally valid, particularly as applied to media practitioners.
  3. 3 Whether criminal defamation laws unjustifiably limit freedom of expression and media rights under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant did not possess the necessary intention for criminal defamation. Although he acted negligently and recklessly by failing to verify the information before publication, recklessness does not equate to criminal intent. The evidence showed that the appellant relied on information provided by others and believed he was acting in the public interest. The State failed to prove intentional publication beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not stand. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court held that criminal defamation, even as applied to media practitioners, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The limitation on freedom of expression...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the conviction is set aside.
  • The common law crime of criminal defamation, insofar as it pertains to the media, is consistent with the Constitution.